Match Padel Cedar Square (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Liquor Board (058697/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 702 (16 July 2024)

Match Padel Cedar Square (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Liquor Board (058697/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 702 (16 July 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to set out explicit facts in the founding affidavit to justify urgency, as required by Rule 6(12)(b). The delay between notification of the decision and launching the application was not adequately explained, and the harm alleged by the applicant—potential retrenchment of four employees—was not substantiated as irreparable or incapable of redress in due course. The business continued to operate, and there was no evidence that the absence of a liquor licence would render the business unsustainable. The court held that any urgency was self-created and that the applicant could obtain substantial redress through the normal review process....

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 702
Parties
Applicant: Match Padel Cedar Square (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gauteng Liquor Board
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2024
Case Number
058697/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs awarded to respondent on scale B.
Judges
Kubushi
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Restaurant Liquor Licence, Substantial Redress, Functus Officio, Rule 6 12, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Urgency in Motion Proceedings Restaurant Liquor Licence Substantial Redress Functus Officio Rule 6 12 Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Match Padel Cedar Square (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gauteng Liquor Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will not be afforded substantial redress in due course if the matter is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in launching the application constitutes self-created urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to set out explicit facts in the founding affidavit to justify urgency, as required by Rule 6(12)(b). The delay between notification of the decision and launching the application was not adequately explained, and the harm alleged by the applicant—potential retrenchment of four employees—was not substantiated as irreparable or incapable of redress in due course. The business continued to operate, and there was no evidence that the absence of a liquor licence would render the business unsustainable. The court held that any urgency was self-created and that the applicant could obtain substantial redress through the normal review process....

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs awarded to respondent on scale B.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs in terms of scale B of Rule 69 of the Uniform Rules of Court.